In a recent determination by the Employment Relations Authority, a 16 year old Southland girl “WFW” was awarded $20,000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings, with costs and lost wages to be determined later.
That sounds like a lot of money for a teenager but Member Helen Doyle noted that:
[121] The evidence supported that the sexual harassment made WFW feel very anxious and uncomfortable and she got to the point where she could not bear working with [the owner] again. [WFW’s mother] confirmed the conduct resulted in a loss of confidence for WFW and a loss of trust in future employers. At the time of the investigation meeting WFW had not obtained other employment but was undertaking some training as she had left school. WFW’s mother said that the sexual harassment had some impact on attendance at school and she struggled to get WFW to go to school. WFW did not continue with her schooling beyond year 11. I do not conclude the poor school attendance is due entirely to the sexual harassment as there appeared to be some historical issues but I accept it in all likelihood contributed.
[122] WFW was prescribed some medication for her anxiety and depression. I cannot conclude that the sexual harassment was the only cause for the anxiety and depression in the absence of medical evidence. I am however satisfied the sexual harassment was a reasonably significant contributing factor to an increase in anxiety levels requiring medication.
We don’t need to go into the details of the sexual harassment, save for the victim being around 15 years old when this was going on. We don’t know the male perpetrator’s age but he is believed to be a father of one, a company director, and at the risk of stating the obvious, a creep.
WFW through her lawyers applied for a non-publication order and it was granted – it would have been pretty rough for a teenager to have her name google up in this context. The non-publication was extended to the employer and its director which appears to have suited both parties. But if the employee had wanted the parties to be named, that most likely would have happened, as Member Doyle alluded to in Paragraph 10.
Reading the determination made the writer (who occasionally employs teenagers for casual work) feel queasy.
Leighton Associates wishes WFW all the best with her job search, and putting this horrible experience behind her.
Tristam Price, Leighton Associates
Comments